Which opinion is stupider to hold in 2023?

[John Dule]

Hard to choose.

[MarkD]

By process of elimination, I'll choose the first is stupider. What is stupid about jury verdicts like O.J. Simpson (or Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) is believing that this or that jury verdict is wrong as if you have access to more information about the facts of the case than the jury did. I NEVER form any opinion of my own about criminal cases that receive so much attention in the news -- should the jury convict or not -- because no matter how much information is being spread in the news about the facts of a case, it probably is not as much information as the jury itself sees and hears; besides that, it simply isn't my call to make. We have trial by jury in the Bill of Rights, not trial by public opinion. So why expend any of my energy trying to study news about the cases and form an opinion of my own about who deserves to be convicted or acquitted? I always accept as inevitable that juries and courts of appeals know more than I do. So to me it's stupid to believe that this or that jury made a mistake.

[LBJer]

By process of elimination, I'll choose the first is stupider. What is stupid about jury verdicts like O.J. Simpson (or Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) is believing that this or that jury verdict is wrong as if you have access to more information about the facts of the case than the jury did. I NEVER form any opinion of my own about criminal cases that receive so much attention in the news -- should the jury convict or not -- because no matter how much information is being spread in the news about the facts of a case, it probably is not as much information as the jury itself sees and hears; besides that, it simply isn't my call to make. We have trial by jury in the Bill of Rights, not trial by public opinion. So why expend any of my energy trying to study news about the cases and form an opinion of my own about who deserves to be convicted or acquitted? I always accept as inevitable that juries and courts of appeals know more than I do. So to me it's stupid to believe that this or that jury made a mistake.

So in other words you're suggesting we should suspend our powers of thought and reason and have blind faith in bodies composed of humans who are just as fallible as anyone else.  No thanks.  Having more knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to making the right decision.  By your logic, people shouldn't question the foreign policy decisions of presidents or other national leaders since they will have more information (intelligence briefings, etc.) about the issue than the public will.  

[MarkD]

By process of elimination, I'll choose the first is stupider. What is stupid about jury verdicts like O.J. Simpson (or Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) is believing that this or that jury verdict is wrong as if you have access to more information about the facts of the case than the jury did. I NEVER form any opinion of my own about criminal cases that receive so much attention in the news -- should the jury convict or not -- because no matter how much information is being spread in the news about the facts of a case, it probably is not as much information as the jury itself sees and hears; besides that, it simply isn't my call to make. We have trial by jury in the Bill of Rights, not trial by public opinion. So why expend any of my energy trying to study news about the cases and form an opinion of my own about who deserves to be convicted or acquitted? I always accept as inevitable that juries and courts of appeals know more than I do. So to me it's stupid to believe that this or that jury made a mistake.

So in other words you're suggesting we should suspend our powers of thought and reason and have blind faith in bodies composed of humans who are just as fallible as anyone else.  No thanks.  Having more knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to making the right decision.  By your logic, people shouldn't question the foreign policy decisions of presidents or other national leaders since they will have more information (intelligence briefings, etc.) about the issue than the public will.  

You made a straw man right at the very beginning. Why should I pay attention to anything else in your post?

[LBJer]

By process of elimination, I'll choose the first is stupider. What is stupid about jury verdicts like O.J. Simpson (or Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.) is believing that this or that jury verdict is wrong as if you have access to more information about the facts of the case than the jury did. I NEVER form any opinion of my own about criminal cases that receive so much attention in the news -- should the jury convict or not -- because no matter how much information is being spread in the news about the facts of a case, it probably is not as much information as the jury itself sees and hears; besides that, it simply isn't my call to make. We have trial by jury in the Bill of Rights, not trial by public opinion. So why expend any of my energy trying to study news about the cases and form an opinion of my own about who deserves to be convicted or acquitted? I always accept as inevitable that juries and courts of appeals know more than I do. So to me it's stupid to believe that this or that jury made a mistake.

So in other words you're suggesting we should suspend our powers of thought and reason and have blind faith in bodies composed of humans who are just as fallible as anyone else.  No thanks.  Having more knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to making the right decision.  By your logic, people shouldn't question the foreign policy decisions of presidents or other national leaders since they will have more information (intelligence briefings, etc.) about the issue than the public will.  

You made a straw man right at the very beginning.

It wasn't a straw man--it was a very reasonable interpretation of your post.  As the saying goes, if the shoe fits...

[Meclazine for Israel]

An impossible choice.

I honestly can't pick it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 1 (unless you are Argentine).